<Drumbeat: March 17, 2009 The Oil Drum When do you think peak oil was/will be here?>

176 comments on World Oil Production Peaked in 2008

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

aangel on March 17, 2009 - 11:00am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Like everything in life, I don't think there is one correct way to look at this situation. You keep trying to assert that your way is the "best" way and other peoples' way is the "wrong" way.

Points of view are like tools in a toolbox. Use the one best for the job.

Point of View 1
Group all liquids because ultimately it's the aggregate that's important to our end uses. This works because the liquids, with some time and effort, are often interchangeable to the machines that run them (or you can change the machine). This is a more strategic view.

Point of View 2
Distinguish the liquids to gain a better understanding of the immediate situation so that short-term decisions can be made, like "will we have a shortage of home heating oil this winter?' etc. This can often benefit tactical choices.

If you have a different way to look at things, I request that you simply say something like, "The benefit of the author's point of view is x but if you look at it from a different point of view, which I'll describe in a moment, the benefit is y."

The benefit of approaching discussions this way is that, If everyone were to do this, we wouldn't keep getting into these endless "he's wrong and I'm right!" battles here.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
stravinsky7 on March 18, 2009 - 1:19am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

i don't think x is trying to start an argument.

it is not wrong to project "peak liquids". In fact, it is vitally important.

however, the article purports to be on peak oil, which it is not, in fact.

"liquids" is frustrating because it is obfuscating. those who have studied enough know the vast difference between "liquids which possess potential chemical energy" and "crude oil" understand that to oh ummm probably 99.2ish percent of the population its all the same. (But the shape of the graphs the two terms produce are not).

yeah, x. i'm with ya.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ccpo on March 18, 2009 - 1:42am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

The problem with x is that he/she says you can't compare apples and oranges (different liquids), but that you also can't count fruit (EROEI).

Can't have it both ways.

Cheers

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
aangel on March 18, 2009 - 12:45pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Leaving aside x's intent (I have no idea what it is) my point is that "there is no one and true and correct point of view usable in all situations" and x keeps asserting that the way people are using liquids can't be done and that his/her way is the "correct way."

There is no "correct" way to view the topic -- there are just ways that give different results depending on what the goal is.

Each point of view has value because it is able to show something that is hidden when using a different point of view.

In the diagram a. below, can you see the orange dot? Of course not, but change the background (the point of view, or filter, if you wish) and the dot becomes visible as in b.

Photobucket

The point of view x is advocating has perfectly good uses but is not as effective when using a different filter of goals and understanding. Same with the point of view he is asserting is "illogical" or "silly nonsense."

If you want a well-rounded understanding of a topic, gather as many points of view as you can. Each one will expand your understanding because each one reveals something unable to be seen by the others.

In this particular case, it is pretty clear to me that x is unable to see what other people are seeing. Does that make him/her a bad person or stupid? Not at all. But if he/she keeps insisting that his/her view is the only one worth examining, it does make him/her in the very least dogmatic and positional. It also turns the conversation from an exploration into a battle in which there must be a winner and a loser.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ccpo on March 19, 2009 - 1:16pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

But if he/she keeps insisting that his/her view is the only one worth examining, it does make him/her in the very least dogmatic and positional. It also turns the conversation from an exploration into a battle in which there must be a winner and a loser.

To be fair to x, your position stated above is just as dogmatic and positional. What is it they say, not making a choice is a choice? I often enjoy your posts, but sometimes I scroll right through them because they are filled with New Agey, nobody's wrong, everybody's right stuff like the above. (And I was very much of that sort of mind in the past, and it still informs my thinking.)

The obvious problem is that sometimes there is *one* best answer, and to say that isn't true is simply false so we need to be just as aware of the possibility there is only one answer as we are that it is *usually* best to take all views into account.

That said, I don't think EROEI is one of those cases where x is right.

Cheers

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
aangel on March 20, 2009 - 3:07pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I assert that "right" and "wrong" exist only in language and are convenient labels. What you call "right" someone else calls "wrong" so clearly their usage depends on the context in which they are used. If it were not so, there would be no disagreements about what is "right" and what is "wrong."

Call it New Agey if you if you'd like, but it's actually epistemology, or at least that's my point of view.

;-)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ccpo on March 20, 2009 - 3:43pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

It's claptrap when you take it that far, Aangel.

Murder is bad. Very few disagree, and those few are murderers.

C'mon... If you can't accept the shortcomings of your stance, you are being nothing more than dogmatic.

You keep referring back to what language is and isn't. I think you sometimes forget that the medium isn't the message, but that the medium we have is the way the message gets transmitted, which means the medium actually is a large portion of the message.

There's not much value in getting too "cute" with this stuff as you lose the real medium: the audience.

Just an observation from someone who makes their living working in the language.

Cheers

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

176 comments on World Oil Production Peaked in 2008

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version